Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: collection selectors paginate whole records, overview omits publications, publications reveal supplied legislation.gov.uk statute links, and contentCursor reconstructs oversized records.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core retrieval purpose and every clause carries a selection, dependency, or pagination rule. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, which makes it harder to scan, but there is little obvious filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex 10-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations. The description supplies the critical cross-parameter dependencies, collection filtering limits, publication nuance, and oversized-record recovery needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema. It links billStageId to section=stages, itemId to the parent collection for singular amendment/motion retrieval, and restricts amendment filters to the amendments collection.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a Westminster bill overview or selected sections including stages, publications, amendments, and motions. It enumerates the selectable sections, so an agent can understand the tool's scope without opening the schema, and it is not a tautology of the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear conditional guidance for selecting sections, including that stage/amendment/motion selections require billStageId and singular selections also require itemId. It also explains filtering and pagination rules, though it does not explicitly route the agent from ukparl_search_bills to this retrieval tool beyond the schema's billId note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.